DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 11 March 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not have a period at the end. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite collecting data from a plant; analyzing the data to characterize a drying process associated with the plant; and providing the analyzed data associated with the drying process associated with the plant to a user. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the systems and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of collecting data, analyzing, and reporting on results, which falls into the “mental processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are collecting data from a plant; analyzing the data to characterize a drying process associated with the plant; and providing the analyzed data associated with the drying process associated with the plant to a user.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to sensors, computer system, processor, computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, server application, user interface, client application, and controlling commands for environmental hardware, to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: sensors, computer system, processor, computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, server application, user interface, client application, and controlling commands for environmental hardware. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further narrowing the abstract ideas by measuring specific data, characterizing processes, alerting, and generating predictive analytics, by way of examples, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0082619 (hereinafter, Martin).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a system comprising: at least one sensor; and a computer system, the computer system further comprising: at least one processor; and a computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, the computer-usable medium capable of communicating with the at least one processor, the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor and comprising: a server application configured for (¶ 239, “The computing system 2350 also comprises a central processing unit (“CPU”) 2352, which may comprise a conventional microprocessor. The computing system 2350 further comprises a memory 2354, such as random access memory (“RAM”) for temporary storage of information and/or a read only memory (“ROM”) for permanent storage of information, and a mass storage device 2358, such as a hard drive, diskette, or optical media storage device.”):
collecting data from the at least one sensor attached to a plant (¶ 223, “temperature and/or humidity sensors in the canopy zone can be used to help keep the canopy zone at an ideal temperature and or humidity for drying.”) (¶ 275, “At block 2775, the system is configured to monitor the humidity level and/or temperature of the environment of the canopy chamber. This may be desirable because, for example, the ideal drying process for a particular plant may occur with the plant canopy at a particular temperature or humidity level, or within a particular range of temperatures or humidity levels. In some embodiments, only one of humidity and temperature is monitored. In some embodiments, both humidity and temperature are monitored. In some embodiments, additional or alternative environmental parameters are monitored.”);
analyzing the data to characterize a drying process associated with the plant (¶ 223, “ the system can be configured to automatically detect when the drying cycle is complete, such as by detecting when the relative humidity is no longer rising”) (¶ 234, “a network connected grow pod system can be configured to collect and analyze relatively large amounts of information gathered from a relatively large number of grow pods. For example, hundreds of commercial and noncommercial growers across the country and/or the world (and/or out of this world) may utilize thousands or hundreds of thousands or more grow pods that are all capable of reporting data back to a main server system for analysis (for example, external system 802 shown in FIG. 8A, or a different central server system).”);
and at least one client application configured for: providing the analyzed data associated with the drying process associated with the plant on a user interface (¶ 223, “Once the system determines that the drying cycle is over, the system may be configured to automatically alert an operator or user”) (¶ 233, “the dynamic and/or real time user interface 2310 can be configured to highlight or otherwise bring a user's attention to grow pods that are experiencing an off-nominal or otherwise atypical situation. For example, if something is malfunctioning in a grow pod, the user interface 2310 may be configured to change the border of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod (e.g., darken the border, make the border thicker, change the color of the border, and/or the like), enlarge the size of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod, bring that box 2312 to the forefront while pushing the other boxes 2312 to the background, hiding all boxes 2312 except for the box 2312 indicative of the off-nominal grow pod, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the device and or user interface 2310 may be configured to make a sound or vibrate to alert a user to such an off-nominal or anomaly situation.”).
Regarding claim 2, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one sensor is capable of measuring at least one of: moisture; temperature; and humidity (¶ 50, “The canopy chamber may comprise a trellis to help mechanically support the canopy of the plant. The canopy chamber may further comprise one or more sensors connected to a control system to help control the plant growth system. For example, the sensors may comprise temperature, humidity, CO2, oxygen, radio spectrometer for measuring light spectrum and intensity, digital camera, infrared camera, brix sensors, sensors that detect a specific property of the plant being grown, and/or the like. The root chamber may comprise various components as will be described in more detail below that support aeroponic nutrient and water distribution to the root system of the plants.”).
Regarding claim 3, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein analyzing the data to characterize the drying process further comprises:
determining whether drying process conditions require intervention (¶ 233, “the dynamic and/or real time user interface 2310 can be configured to highlight or otherwise bring a user's attention to grow pods that are experiencing an off-nominal or otherwise atypical situation. For example, if something is malfunctioning in a grow pod”); and
sending an alert when the drying process conditions require intervention (¶ 233, “if something is malfunctioning in a grow pod, the user interface 2310 may be configured to change the border of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod (e.g., darken the border, make the border thicker, change the color of the border, and/or the like), enlarge the size of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod, bring that box 2312 to the forefront while pushing the other boxes 2312 to the background, hiding all boxes 2312 except for the box 2312 indicative of the off-nominal grow pod, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the device and or user interface 2310 may be configured to make a sound or vibrate to alert a user to such an off-nominal or anomaly situation.”).
Regarding claim 4, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the server application is further configured for: characterizing spatial uniformity and quality of a drying chamber according to the data from the at least one sensor (¶ 53, “the size and shape of a grow pod as disclosed herein may be variable based on the type of crop being grown and/or the available space in the facility where the crop is being grown…a version of a plant growth system configured to efficiently grow high light intensity fruiting and flowering crops may desirably be approximately 4 feet wide by 4 feet deep by 6 feet high. Such an embodiment may comprise, for example, a 1000 W capacity high intensity discharge lighting system. Such an embodiment, in a cylindrical design with the light source centrally located, may provide, for example, approximately 48 ft..sup.2 of plant canopy space within a 16 ft..sup.2 footprint, thereby effectively tripling space utilization over a traditional two dimensional canopy configuration”).
Regarding claim 5, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one client application is further configured for: providing control commands to environmental hardware (¶ 9, “reducing introduction of moisture into the aeroponic root chamber; monitoring a temperature of an internal environment of the canopy chamber; maintaining the temperature of the internal environment of the canopy chamber to within a predetermined drying temperature range; monitoring a relative humidity level of the internal environment of the canopy chamber; maintaining the relative humidity level of the internal environment of the canopy chamber to within a predetermined drying humidity level range; and detecting when the canopy of the plant is no longer introducing moisture into the environment of the canopy chamber, wherein the method is at least partially automatically controlled by a computer system.”).
Regarding claim 6, Martin teaches the system of claim 5 wherein the environmental hardware comprises at least one of: HVAC equipment; humidifiers; and dehumidifiers (¶ 209, “Another environmental parameter that can be desirable to be controlled within the canopy chamber is the relative humidity within the canopy chamber. In some embodiments, a standard humidifier and/or a standard dehumidifier may be used in conjunction with a control system to control the ambient humidity within the canopy chamber.”).
Regarding claim 7, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising: at least one off-plant sensor configured to measure at least one of: humidity; temperature; pressure; light level; air flow; and water quality (¶ 50, “The canopy chamber may further comprise one or more sensors connected to a control system to help control the plant growth system. For example, the sensors may comprise temperature, humidity, CO2, oxygen, radio spectrometer for measuring light spectrum and intensity, digital camera, infrared camera, brix sensors, sensors that detect a specific property of the plant being grown, and/or the like.”).
Regarding claim 8, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the server application is further configured for: storing the data to characterize a drying process associated with the plant in a database organized according to an order of each drying process (¶ 270, “The system may access such a database to, for example, retrieve a grow recipe that, for example, defines or lists one or more desirable parameters to be controlled during that stage. For example, a grow recipe retrieved from the recipe database 2765 during the seedling stage may provide the desirable parameters or ranges for, for example, canopy chamber temperature, relative humidity level, light spectrum, light intensity, and/or the like. As another example, during the fruit/flowering stage, such a recipe received from the recipe database 2765 may provide information related to the same or similar parameters, but some of the information may be different. For example, the light spectrum and/or intensity of light may be different in the fruit/flowering stage with respect to the seedling stage. These parameters are merely some examples, and various other parameters may also be defined in the grow recipes and/or may vary between the different stages.”).
Regarding claim 9, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the server application is configured for: generating predictive analytics during the drying process according to the analyzed data and historical data (¶ 234, “a network connected grow pod system can be configured to collect and analyze relatively large amounts of information gathered from a relatively large number of grow pods. For example, hundreds of commercial and noncommercial growers across the country and/or the world (and/or out of this world) may utilize thousands or hundreds of thousands or more grow pods that are all capable of reporting data back to a main server system for analysis (for example, external system 802 shown in FIG. 8A, or a different central server system). One benefit of such a system is that, for example, the system may be able to analyze the data and determined that particular environmental parameters and/or nutrient profiles utilized at some locations has resulted in increased efficiency. Further, the system can be configured to then update nutrient profiles and/or other operating parameters and distribute this information across other locations or grow pods to enable growing efficiency to be increased across the system.”).
Regarding claim 10, Martin teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the predictive analytics comprise at least one of: estimation of dry-process completion using data from previous dry processes; identification of adverse drying process conditions; recommended drying operational changes; and management and restriction of drying process operations (¶ 233, the dynamic and/or real time user interface 2310 can be configured to highlight or otherwise bring a user's attention to grow pods that are experiencing an off-nominal or otherwise atypical situation. For example, if something is malfunctioning in a grow pod, the user interface 2310 may be configured to change the border of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod (e.g., darken the border, make the border thicker, change the color of the border, and/or the like), enlarge the size of the box 2312 indicative of that grow pod, bring that box 2312 to the forefront while pushing the other boxes 2312 to the background, hiding all boxes 2312 except for the box 2312 indicative of the off-nominal grow pod, and/or the like. In some embodiments, the device and or user interface 2310 may be configured to make a sound or vibrate to alert a user to such an off-nominal or anomaly situation. “”).
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors wherein each sensor in the plurality of sensors is disposed on a different plant (¶ 50, “sensors that detect a specific property of the plant being grown, and/or the like. The root chamber may comprise various components as will be described in more detail below that support aeroponic nutrient and water distribution to the root system of the plant”) (¶ 109, “the pattern of the hollow tubing 412 and/or plant supports 414 can be different for different plants and/or to support differing amounts of weight. For example, the pattern illustrated in FIG. 4B is a grid pattern having square or rectangular grids formed by the hollow tubing 412 and plant supports 414. It may be desirable in some embodiments, however, to use different patterns, such as triangular grids or the like.”).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 10. Therefore, claim 19 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claims 1 and 3 in combination. Therefore, claim 20 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 3 in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
